One is only worn by a voluntary subset of religious practitioners, the other is sometimes mandated for all women. Choice is the difference.

What's the difference?[/quote]
The difference would be salient if either of them would feel oppressed by their outfit.
Quite likely, neither of them do.

Rebelling against social norms is for teenagers.

:up:

In both pictures, women are covered from head to toe. Yet, one is considered the epitome of virtue and the other is seen as the very definition of oppression.

Maybe this is not the case anymore, but in the past parents used to force daughters to become nuns as well...

Wouldn't it be good to ask them if they feel oppressed?
What happened in Egypt when elections happened after the spring-revolution (today is the anniversary by the way)? Check out who won...

One of the two groups, Christian nuns and Muslim women, has been, well, brainwashed. Perhaps both.

has been, well, brainwashed. — TheMadFool

Who hasn't?

How on earth is wearing a minskirt and high heels a case of _not_ being brainwashed??

What's the difference? From what I understand, the Islamic girls will be wearing expensive Western clothing under the Chador.

So why, exactly and precisely, are Moslem women supposed to be covered? I did not tell them that.

I'm curious about the picture of the nuns. The ones I know of stopped wearing that sort of habit when I was being taught by them in elementary school, and that, alas, was a long time ago. Thereafter they wore shorter skirts (not miniskirts, of course) and a kind of small jacket or vest, and a smaller veil. But for the viel and the uniform color of the rest of the outfit, they looked much like other women here in God's Favorite Country (the U.S.A.). I suppose the habits change according to the order.

One is only worn by a voluntary subset of religious practitioners, the other is sometimes mandated for all women. Choice is the difference — Pfhorrest

Let's say that Muslim women don't have a choice in the matter and those who chose to be Christian nuns did so of their own free will and the habit was part and parcel of the vows nuns make. A difference alright and I admit it's a heck of big difference.

What I find intriguing is that a Christian nun's habit is remarkably similar to the Muslim chador and the reason for adopting such attire in both cases is identical - piety. If we're willing to allow one (in public places), there simply is no reason (I can think of) to ban the other. Both, after all, are in deference to the divine, are expressions of faith.

Of course there's is a difference between a nun and a laywoman. In the Christendom, nuns are ordained into an order, are part of the clergy and have consecrated their lives to religion. In the case of Islam, laywomen wear the chador, not just the clerics.

However, the crux of the matter (Muslim women's attire and the Christian nuns' habit) can be teased out by asking two questions:

1. Why do Christian nuns' and Muslim women dress the way the do?

The answer: As an expression of their faith; as a sign of their piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god. [The reason is identical for both.]

2. Why is it that the Christian nuns' habit is permitted, with deference even?

The answer: A Christian nun's habit is [an expression of their faith; as a sign of piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god.]

If so, Muslim women too should be allowed to wear the chador (publicly) because their reasons for wearing it are exactly the same as those of Christian nuns' who have to dress in a strikingly similar fashion and we're totally OK with Christian nuns.

Who hasn't? — baker

So, both parties - Christian nuns and Muslim women - have been brainwashed. How?

The answer: As an expression of their faith; as a sign of their piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god. [The reason is identical for both.] — TheMadFool

Really? Imho that is a lie. Their lie (Moslems) not your lie. They dress like that because both their faith and Moslem men are f**ked up. I'd appreciate learning a kinder, gentler reality, but I am persuaded there isn't one.

The difference is that the objection comes from those who object to their faith and their belief in the word of god, and perceive their outward show of confidence as a threat.

So, both parties - Christian nuns and Muslim women - have been brainwashed. How? — TheMadFool

You think wearing a minskirt and high heels is _not_ a case of _not_ being brainwashed??

In both pictures, women are covered from head to toe. Yet, one is considered the epitome of virtue and the other is seen as the very definition of oppression. — TheMadFool

The punishment for not wearing a nun's habit is not being a nun anymore. The punishment for not wearing the chador ranges from having acid thrown in your face to being beaten to death.

Another difference is that if the nun, whether she is wearing the habit or not, is raped, it is the rapist's fault. If a Muslim woman wearing a chador is raped, it is the rapist's fault. But if a Muslim woman not wearing a chador is raped, it is invariably the woman's fault. She might even be arrested for being raped. Some have described raping women who are not sufficiently covered as a man's duty.

In that context, whether there are women who would choose to wear the chador anyway is rather irrelevant, essentially what-iffing about alternate realities.

1. Why do Christian nuns' and Muslim women dress the way the do?

The answer: As an expression of their faith; as a sign of their piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god. [The reason is identical for both.]

2. Why is it that the Christian nuns' habit is permitted, with deference even?

The answer: A Christian nun's habit is [an expression of their faith; as a sign of piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god.] — TheMadFool

In this matter, as in all matters, it's useful to consider the law. In the case of nun's, or sisters, Canon Law governs.

First:
Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.

Second:
Can. 669 §1. Religious are to wear the habit of the institute, made according to the norm of proper law, as a sign of their consecration and as a witness of poverty. (An "institute" is a society in which members, according to proper law, pronounce public vows, either perpetual or temporary which are to be renewed, however, when the period of time has elapsed, and lead a life of brothers or sisters in common.)

Third, and also in Can. 669:
§2. Clerical religious of an institute which does not have a proper habit are to wear clerical dress according to the norm of can. 284.

Now consider the words of John Paul II, Pontifex Maximus, in 1996 at the end of a Synod, Vita Consecarta 25:

The Church must always seek to make her presence visible in everyday life, especially in contemporary culture, which is often very secularized and yet sensitive to the language of signs. In this regard the Church has a right to expect a significant contribution from consecrated persons, called as they are in every situation to bear clear witness that they belong to Christ.Since the habit is a sign of consecration, poverty and membership in a particular Religious family, I join the Fathers of the Synod in strongly recommending to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place.Where valid reasons of their apostolate call for it, Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner, with an appropriate symbol, in such a way that their consecration is recognizable.Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation.

The habit of a nun/sister therefore (and others, e.g. priests and brothers), is worn to establish their membership in a particular order of the Church, and as a witness to of poverty. It also serves witness to the fact that they "belong to Christ" and "makes the Church visible in everyday life." Its form is not mandated, but varies according to the rules of the order to which the member belongs, as approved by the appropriate bishop, and may be adapted to time and place. Where no particular form of habit has been designated, then the dress of the member of an order should be simple and dignified and accord with local customs, and an appropriate symbol should be displayed.

The habit therefore is worn to reflect membership in a particular order of "institute" of the Church (the piety of such member being taken for granted), as a form of advertising for the Church and a particular order (loosely speaking). It isn't required of women only, and need not be of a particular type or nature, i.e. need not cover X, Y or Z, need not be of a particular color, need not be a sign of sexual modesty or worn to prevent the arousal of the brute needs of the male. Simply put, it's in the nature of a uniform more than anything else.

Whether or not one feels oppressed by something is not the only indicator of whether that thing is right or wrong, no?

Or did I misunderstand you?

Really? Imho that is a lie. Their lie (Moslems) not your lie. They dress like that because both their faith and Moslem men are f**ked up. I'd appreciate learning a kinder, gentler reality, but I am persuaded there isn't one — tim wood

In what sense are "...both their faith and Moslem men..." f**ked up? Are you suggesting that Islam breeds thoroughgoing male chauvinists who engage in the oppression of women? Does Islamic doctrine produce the right conditions for male domination? Many think that's the case; the internet is chockablock with detractors of Islam especially on the matter of how women are treated in that religion and from what I gather they've done their homework.

The questions then are:

1. Does a Christian nun's habit represent a similar misogynistic tendency in Christianity?

If no,

2. Why? The point of covering up a woman from head to toe in a loose garment seems to be a denial or rejection of their sexuality and it's a well-known fact that Christianity too has major issues with sex, vows of celibacy figures prominently as conditions for becoming a priest or nun. To make the long story short, a Christian nun's habit is consistent with Christian views on sex with respect to religion.

If yes,

3. Why is it tolerated and not the hijab, the niqab, the burka, the chador?

The difference is that the objection comes from those who object to their faith and their belief in the word of god, and perceive their outward show of confidence as a threat. — Possibility

You mean to say Christians are nervous about how strong a Moslem's faith is? Oddly, Christians and Moslems, even Jews, believe in the same god. For that reason, Christians should be happy to have Moslem women dressed as they're supposed to (hijab, niqab, burka, chador); after all, they're wearing apparel that's standard for Christian nuns, women who've dedicated their lives to god who also goes by the name Allah.

You think wearing a minskirt and high heels is _not_ a case of _not_ being brainwashed?? — baker

That's the other extreme of male chauvinism's effect on women. Objectifying women i.e. treating them as objects and property manifests in two forms: at one end, women must keep their sensuality under wraps and at the other end, they must display it to the hilt. I feel bad for women now but they should be happy, at some level, that they are part of a paradox. What shall I call this paradox? The Bikini-Burqa paradox of the objectification of women. That sounds like a good name for a paradox.

The punishment for not wearing a nun's habit is not being a nun anymore. The punishment for not wearing the chador ranges from having acid thrown in your face to being beaten to death.

Another difference is that if the nun, whether she is wearing the habit or not, is raped, it is the rapist's fault. If a Muslim woman wearing a chador is raped, it is the rapist's fault. But if a Muslim woman not wearing a chador is raped, it is invariably the woman's fault. She might even be arrested for being raped. Some have described raping women who are not sufficiently covered as a man's duty.

In that context, whether there are women who would choose to wear the chador anyway is rather irrelevant, essentially what-iffing about alternate realities. — Kenosha Kid

Can you have a look at my reply to baker above?

It isn't required of women only, and need not be of a particular type or nature, i.e. need not cover X, Y or Z, need not be of a particular color, need not be a sign of sexual modesty or worn to prevent the arousal of the brute needs of the male. — Ciceronianus the White

:up: Thanks for the reply. Very informative but I can't help notice how a nun's habit fits like a glove with Christianity's views on sex [modesty] (see here.

Can you have a look at my reply to baker above? — TheMadFool

Honestly, I think the idea that bikinis and miniskirts are one pole and burqas another is overstated. Fashion is not the opposite of oppression. Demand for fashion is manufactured. Bikinis are a product of manufacturers needing to sell wares with less material. Miniskirts are likewise a manifestation of the focus on selling cheap, disposable product to the working classes. It's still people wearing what they're told to wear, it's just a different group telling them, one of which has the option to say no without fear of violence.

Are you suggesting that Islam breeds thoroughgoing male chauvinists who engage in the oppression of women? — TheMadFool

Not a suggestion, but as you note, a strong-seeming fact. I refer you back to a Times Magazine cover of a few years ago of a clearly attractive young Afghani girl/women. If memory serves, she had gone to school. Do you remember that photo of that atrocity?

As to the habits of nuns, there might have been a time when you wore a boy scout uniform and were glad to wear it. Imagine being forced to wear it, under threat of severe penalty if you did not. And Ciceronianus notes the whys of habits v. the whys of burkas. Not really a discussion here, at least on the clothes, I think.

That's the other extreme of male chauvinism's effect on women. — TheMadFool

This is giving men too much credit. The idea that a half of the population is supposedly under the thumb of the other half of the population is problematic, to say the least.

And you're forgetting the effect that women have on what men wear, how much say women have in what men wear.


Further, there are other interpretations of the purpose of clothes that women are supposed to wear in Islam: Namely, the idea that there is a strict line between the public and the private. The burka isn't hiding or opressing the woman's sexuality; it is reserving it for her husband. As it should, when people take marriage seriously.

Similarly, a Catholic nun is married to Christ, and her sexuality is reserved for him, and she manifests this with her dress, among other things.

The dress follows from the vows, not the vows from the dress.


The idea that a person should indiscriminately flaunt their sexuality is an invention of pop-psychology.

Honestly, I think the idea that bikinis and miniskirts are one pole and burqas another is overstated. Fashion is not the opposite of oppression. Demand for fashion is manufactured. Bikinis are a product of manufacturers needing to sell wares with less material. Miniskirts are likewise a manifestation of the focus on selling cheap, disposable product to the working classes. It's still people wearing what they're told to wear, it's just a different group telling them, one of which has the option to say no without fear of violence. — Kenosha Kid

"Fashion is not the opposite of oppression". I'm not claiming that it is but oppression if it's institutionalized can have a profound effect on fashion and I suppose the opposite is also true if one takes into account how strongly women feel about fashion.

"Bikinis are a product of manufacturers needing to sell wares with less material" is another one of those mind tricks women fall for. They pay as much for a full-length gown as they do for a mini-skirt with less than half the material. What on earth are they [women] paying for? Vitamin D from more exposed skin? :chin:

What I'm concerned about though is how women are in a wardrobe dilemma. Dress in a burqa and it's a sign of oppression at the hands of men, dress in a mini-skirt and it's again that. So, are we supposed to look for the Aristotelian golden mean here? A knee-length skirt and mutatis mutandis other clothing items?

Anyway, coming to the main issue the OP is about, why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in miniskirts? In other words, why are mini-skirts and bikinis inappropriate for nuns? Some posters have taken the trouble to list the reasons for the particular way a nun's habit is designed - covering the body from head to toe. Nowhere in that list does it say that it's got to do with a woman's sexuality, specifically that a nun's habit was/is designed to conceal it. Nevertheless, received opinion suggests that, for a woman, covering her body is a demonstration of her modesty and her refusal to validate the sexual objectification of women by men.

Given that's the case, there's no legitimate reason for us to be offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors.

Not a suggestion, but as you note, a strong-seeming fact. I refer you back to a Times Magazine cover of a few years ago of a clearly attractive young Afghani girl/women. If memory serves, she had gone to school. Do you remember that photo of that atrocity?

As to the habits of nuns, there might have been a time when you wore a boy scout uniform and were glad to wear it. Imagine being forced to wear it, under threat of severe penalty if you did not. And Ciceronianus notes the whys of habits v. the whys of burkas. Not really a discussion here, at least on the clothes, I think. — tim wood

Why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in bikinis and miniskirts? What's up with that? Surely, concerns for modesty and keeping their sexuality hidden are key to this prohibition or our taking umbrage if and when nuns do dress like that. Basically, a Christian nun's habit is, despite what Ciceronianus said, about a woman's sensuality. Christian nuns are held in high esteem for their devotion to god and renouncing the pleasures of the flesh i.e. modesty plays a huge role in their moral lives. So, shouldn't a Moslem women who wears a burqa/hijab/chador/niqab be viewed in the same light? As women who are devoted to a moral life, just like a Christian nun?

This is giving men too much credit. The idea that a half of the population is supposedly under the thumb of the other half of the population is problematic, to say the least.

And you're forgetting the effect that women have on what men wear, how much say women have in what men wear.

Further, there are other interpretations of the purpose of clothes that women are supposed to wear in Islam: Namely, the idea that there is a strict line between the public and the private. The burka isn't hiding or oppressing the woman's sexuality; it is reserving it for her husband. As it should, when people take marriage seriously.

Similarly, a Catholic nun is married to Christ, and her sexuality is reserved for him, and she manifests this with her dress, among other things.

The dress follows from the vows, not the vows from the dress.


The idea that a person should indiscriminately flaunt their sexuality is an invention of pop-psychology. — baker

It's a two-way street then. Men influence women and, conversely, women influence men too. Yet, this is no well-balanced relationship as far as I can tell; men have the upper hand. A simple proof of this is that, ceteris paribus, men control the wealth of the world, also wield power in greater numbers, and as they say, whoever has the gold makes the rules. I'm quite sure that men were/are one up on women and will be for the foreseeable future. The perfect conditions then for the status quo to remain as it is for a long time to come.

You mean to say Christians are nervous about how strong a Moslem's faith is? Oddly, Christians and Moslems, even Jews, believe in the same god. For that reason, Christians should be happy to have Moslem women dressed as they're supposed to (hijab, niqab, burka, chador); after all, they're wearing apparel that's standard for Christian nuns, women who've dedicated their lives to god who also goes by the name Allah. — TheMadFool

I’m not saying anything about Christians in general. Those who object to the way Muslim women dress who do identify as ‘Christians’ seem to be presenting a particular consolidated opposition based on a form of faith or belief in a particular source of teachings, and view these particular headscarves as a symbolic expression of what they oppose. The same goes for the consolidated position of ‘freedom’ as opposed to ‘oppression’.

The fact is, Christian women who dress provocatively are not all free from oppression, and Muslim women who wear a hijab are not all oppressed. But to be honest, I don’t think the objection to Muslim headscarves have anything really to do with one ‘God’ or another, or even about freedom from oppression. These consolidated oppositions are a ruse. It’s more about fearing the potential of what we don’t understand - and not having opportunities to develop understanding in an inclusive environment.

There are a lot of men here with much to say about what women wear and why. It seems to me that an important element missing from this discussion is the variable intentionality of Muslim women and nuns themselves. There is a tendency to view these women as limited by dress requirements, but they don’t always see themselves this way. I recognise that many Muslim women who wear the burka in particular, and headscarves in general, can be either required or pressured to do so - whether under the guise of protecting the person, virtue or property, or as an identification of their faith or cultural affiliation - but many also choose this form of protection or identification. To many of these women - particularly those living in Western society - the chador is an expression of their freedom. As a Western woman, the idea of choosing to draw a clearer line between public and private attire when you’re travelling from one place to another seems an attractive option to me for a number of situations. Banning the wearing of Muslim headscarves in Western society can be seen by these women as a form of oppression.

Anyway, coming to the main issue the OP is about, why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in miniskirts? — TheMadFool

Do Christian nuns _want_ to wear miniskirts? I doubt it.

Nevertheless, received opinion suggests that, for a woman, covering her body is a demonstration of her modesty and her refusal to validate the sexual objectification of women by men.

Have you ever thought about how revealing Victorian dresses actually are?

Given that's the case, there's no legitimate reason for us to be offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors.

(I tried to find the news article about it, but it's been awhile.) When Madeleine Albright was in her official capacity talking to women from Muslim countries (I forgot exactly from which country), she spoke to them on the assumption that those women felt oppressed and Albright saw herself as some kind of savior to them, or at least, to commiserate with them. But those Muslim women clearly told her that they didn't feel oppressed.
I don't feel offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors, nor about the habits of Catholic nuns.

It's a two-way street then. Men influence women and, conversely, women influence men too. Yet, this is no well-balanced relationship as far as I can tell; men have the upper hand. A simple proof of this is that, ceteris paribus, men control the wealth of the world, also wield power in greater numbers, and as they say, whoever has the gold makes the rules. I'm quite sure that men were/are one up on women and will be for the foreseeable future. The perfect conditions then for the status quo to remain as it is for a long time to come.

But women are complicit in this. A complex social situation doesn't come about just by the actions of one party, in this case, men.

What I'm concerned about though is how women are in a wardrobe dilemma. Dress in a burqa and it's a sign of oppression at the hands of men, dress in a mini-skirt and it's again that. So, are we supposed to look for the Aristotelian golden mean here? A knee-length skirt and mutatis mutandis other clothing items? — TheMadFool

There's a difference, though, between advocating against wearing the chador for symbolic reasons and advocating against forcing it upon women for political reasons. Other than monocultural misfits (e.g. your Brexit-baiting crowd), I don't know that anyone objects to the chador itself. It's knowing that chances are the woman is wearing it out of fear of violence that is objectionable.

By contrast, the fear of being judged as unfashionable is of little concern. It's voluntary as to whether you care about that stuff and hang out with other people who judge you on that stuff. It's comparable to a fear of being judged as not knowing enough Tolkien lore. Who gives a rat? :D

Anyway, coming to the main issue the OP is about, why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in miniskirts? In other words, why are mini-skirts and bikinis inappropriate for nuns? — TheMadFool

Well, I think they should! You're right, in both cases there's an element of chastity and discretion. But for nuns it's something they want to do. And if a Muslim woman wants to wear a chador, they absolutely should feel free to. As I said, remove the fear of violence for not wearing it and see what happens.

As I said, remove the fear of violence for not wearing it — Kenosha Kid

And how do you propose to do that??

And how do you propose to do that?? — baker

Not a clue. But that doesn't mean we should perpetuate the myth that it's a question of choice when the choice is often a chador or a face full of acid. If and when the same women are at no risk whatever they wear, then we can ask what their free choices symbolise, if we care (which I don't).

if we care (which I don't). — Kenosha Kid

Why don't you care?